Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>> How about freezing anything older than vacuum_freeze_min_age, just like
>>> VACUUM does?
>>
>> I suppose that'd be OK, but is it likely to be worth the trouble?
> I think so, because it means that people using CLUSTER to keep the size
> of tables in line instead of VACUUM, would not need the otherwise
> mandatory VACUUM.
Fair enough. Who will fix the already-applied patch?
regards, tom lane
